Ruby Impressions

[Skip Montanaro]

    >> There's a fundamental difference in values here. I proposed a
    >> function that would make the code harder to read until you learn what
    >> it does, but *easier* to read *after* you learn what it does.

    dave> Whether or not it becomes any easier to read is very debatable,
    dave> but the problem is that, at best, your method would be beneficial
    dave> only if you are the only programmer. I spend a lot of time working
    dave> with other people's code, and if for each person I have to go look
    dave> up the definition of their special init function that's a lot more
    dave> work and the code is a lot less readable overall.

Reminds me of the time many years ago I was helping a colleague with some
programming task.  He and I were both emacs users, but for the life of me I
couldn't use his emacs session because he and so transmogrified his keymaps
as to make it completely useless for anyone but himself.  I had to let him
"drive" and tell him what I wanted done instead of simply fixing it myself.
There is definitely value in adopting conventions, even if it means certain
individuals' productivity might be slightly reduced.

-- 
Skip Montanaro (skip at pobox.com - http://www.mojam.com/)